People insist in considering almond milk (and many other vegetable based milks for that matter) as a mere substitute for cow milk, and not for a kind of food in its own right.
Where I live, with the exception of oat milk, all soy, rice or almond milk comes with tricalcium phosphate and sometimes sugar, some flavour and even vegetable fat. Same for yoghurt.
This tendency to add stuff (particularly sugar and fat) to food is becoming more frequent in bread and other vegetable products that were healthier once.
Sure, it's not the same as dairy milk, but I don't get this whole "don't call plant-based milk 'milk'" meme. What about Milkweed, or the white oozing "milt" that comes out of a dandelion stalk? Can those also not be called milk?
Maybe if there was a good word that quickly described what rice, soy, or oat milk was it would be OK. But simply calling them "juice" seems to be even more of a culinary misnomer.
it's not about what you call it... it about not adding s to it to make it more like "cow milk" now that you call it milk
like in, "look, kids are eating this for breakfast, we need to fortify it vitamins and stuff to prevent deficiencies"... nevermind that those extra vitamins will just increase the risk of cancers or stuff in adults. it's becoming hard to find the "un-enhanced" sortiments of many products.
While I'm generally a fan of leaving foods as untouched as possible, I have not seen any link between vitamin D3 in the dosage applied to milk and cancer. Conversely, vitamin D deficiency is a population health problem (widespread), so the tradeoff is warranted.
> vitamin D deficiency is a population health problem (widespread)
...despite the study that got very popular on HN lately this is far from a clearly agreed upon theory. There's still only retrospective data and with enough confounding factors to make drawing any inference on the causality of things very very hard. Until we all start wearing blood-analyzing implants for a generation or so, >50% of nutrition related studies will continue either being bullshit or not meaning what we think they mean,
Of course, I forgot vitamins. Who needs doctors when we have corporate nannies telling us how to eat healthily.
I don't know about cancer, but food additives aren't always a good idea.
Extra calcium is not really absorbed without vitamin D3 (more specifically, calcitriol), but I imagine that if one has a kidney condition one would have to avoid such food additives.
Even the addition of iodine to salt is not without consequences.
There was a time in the US margarine had to be dyed pink, so that consumers wouldn't take it for butter. Of course no one would confuse the two: it's just a disingenuous way of using antitrust law against the very competition it's supposed to protect.
The same thing happens here: soy yoghurt is 'soy dessert', soy/rice/* milk is '* beverage'.
I'm not sure this is actually enforced, or brands are just covering their asses.
I don't get this whole "don't call plant-based milk 'milk'" meme
I'm on both sides of this. I think it should be called milk, and the public should understand that the nutrition is very different, but perhaps for public interest not calling it milk is better because cow milk does offer more bang-for-buck and nutrition (particularly protein and vit D fortification) and the public could easily overlook this. I lean toward not calling it milk, because everyone who wants almond milk knows what to buy or can figure it out quite easily, even if it's not called milk any more.
Drought inducing? Are you forgetting that feeding cows is much more inneficient than growing crops? They drink lots of water and eat lots of corn/soy, and that corn and soy requires lots of water to grow.
AND you have to feed the calf a milk substitute because we're stealing it's meal.
If you must have milk, drink dairy substitutes if you care about drought.
If you don't have pastures for cows or for the corn/soy then you make it right? Also terrible for the environment.
It's a massive system beyond simply "eating the grass which people couldn't eat". People consume many times more dairy and eat many times more beef than in history.
There's not enough land for all of the cows to free graze. It was estimated we would need something like 7 Earths to feed the world on the Western diet.
Feedlots feed out with hay/grain, molasses and silage. The grain was (nominally) edible by humans; the rest is not. Over 100 days they eat ~1500kg per head total and gain around 140kg (meat).
So when counting the grain used against the cost of meat, include the dry material as well for a fair comparison.
> It takes 1.1 gallons (5 litres) of water to grow one almond, and thanks to the big profits they bring in, almond orchards continue to be planted (this isn’t to say cow’s milk, which takes about 100 litres of water to produce 100ml of milk, is more environmentally friendly – more that its production is not concentrated in one area of the globe).
To be fair though, the milk I drink comes from Wisconsin, which isn't have a drought, while the almonds I eat/drink come from California which is having a drought. Unfortunately we can't grow almonds in most of the parts of the country that have plenty of water, but we can raise cows.
Here in the land of corn syrup we have 2 national brands of almond milk that have at least 4 varieties, combining plain or vanilla with sweetened or unsweetened. Similar for other vegetable milks.
And currently the dairy industry in Europe is litigating to ensure that only mammalian milk is allowed to be sold as milk, this would appear to going in the face of hundreds of years of history of calling other things milk. I wonder what Milk of Magnesia will have to be renamed to
Wow. Goes to show how things can go unnoticed. I just went the the fridge to fact check your comment (!) and discovered cashewmilk, coconutmilk, and soymilk. I had never noticed the disappearing space
For whatever it's worth, the lawsuit was brought by a German society that aims to ensure fair competition by truth in advertising. (Were they bought by the dairy industry? Possible.)
The judgement is clearly based on the definition "The term “milk” shall mean exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom." from EU law made by the European Parliament and the Council. (Were they bought by the dairy industry? Possible. But given this sentence that is part of EU law, the court didn't have much choice.)
Many languages are spoken in the EU (as anyone can check by the several translations available for the many documents published by the EU: https://curia.europa.eu), so this sounds really silly.
I say this because most meanings are lost in translation if we're to use them literally.
Take the english word 'oil'.
- In Spain, oil would be translated to 'aceite': olive oil is 'aceite de oliva'; engine lubricating oil is 'aceite de motor'. The same thing happens in French, but a literal translation would sound weird in Portuguese, because
- In Portugal, olive oil is simply called 'azeite', a word that is not used for sunflower seed oil, called 'óleo de girassol', or motor oil, called 'óleo' or 'óleo de motor'.
A similar thing happens with the word 'cream', translated to 'natas' if it refers to the solid phase of cow milk, or 'creme' if it refers to some form of paste, be it an edible spread, a soup, or some body lotion.
So the very fact that they translated 'cream' as 'natas', in the portuguese version, means that the context is everything and that people are not unquestioning automata.
The protected food names scheme makes a lot of sense If a food label highlights a regional traditional food then it must come from that area if they have applied for protection. Seems in consumers and manufacturers best interest. Here's a map of British protected foods, I see none I would contest: https://goo.gl/tyE4Bm
My judgment is somewhat clouded by the fact that I have no idea what many of the things on this map are, but in general, I get it if we're talking about, like, Prince Edward Island oysters, but I don't think regional distinctions make much sense for preparations. I think it makes more sense to delineate the preparation required to call something by a particular name (so, for instance, if you wanted to really clamp down on Parmesan cheese, I'd prefer specifying the method you have to use over just saying if it's from Parma it's good but if it's from Wisconsin you can't call it that).
Both are usually needed. This is because many properties of the final product are determined by the local fauna/flora as well.
In addition there is the whole question of IP for names of cities/regions. I mean if a place makes efforts to ensure that good quality products are made there, it becomes like a brand that needs to be protected.
So for me protecting Parma Ham is just the same as protecting Coca Cola, just that the moral person is the community living in the place instead of a multinational company.
Nothing prevents you from making of copy of Parma Ham and building your brand, just like you can copy Cocal Cola or any other product. Just don't use the name.
I mean, ultimately I don't agree with this perspective. Nobody would maintain that only Burgundians can make Beef Burgundy, or only Ukrainians (what's the demonym here, Kievites?) can do Chicken Kiev, right?
I'm not convinced that 'Welsh Lamb' is in any real sense a regional traditional food that differs from English lamb, but on consumer protection grounds I also don't reckon that you should be able to label random lamb as Welsh anyway. And some others ('Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb' is the one I know best) really are quite distinct from their equivalents elsewhere and really should be recognised as its own thing.
Manufacturers (esp agricultural) are the ones protected. We don't have the same "food fraud" issues that have become a problem in the states (mislabeling fish, etc.).
People used to say "french campaign," they knew some of it was made elsewhere. I would wager more people knew that some champagne was made elsewhere than people who knew that champagne is a region. Same for Greek Yoghurt or feta cheese. These were considered types of products.
Good or bad, these are pure agricultural lobby initiatives, not consumer protection. IMO, it's not too different from Hollywood getting regional trademark protection for to word "romantic comedy."
No it's not in the consumer's best interest. I really don't care if I'm drinking Champagne or Prosecco, as long as it tastes good.
Instead of this current racket, where food names become less clear, the regional food manufacturers should be forming associations that build brands. These brands can then utilize logos, trademarks, anti-counterfeiting designs and other enforceable IP to stand out as being "Original Champagne" or "English Cheddar," or whatever is needed.
> No it's not in the consumer's best interest. I really don't care if I'm drinking Champagne or Prosecco, as long as it tastes good.
I'm not sure that's the best example. In addition to being made in different places, Champagne and Prosecco are made from different grape varieties, and Prosecco is normally made using a different process (Charmat rather than 'traditionelle' - fermented in tank rather than in bottle). They're really quite different products. The generic term that covers both kinds is 'sparkling wine', and if you don't care which kind you get as long as it's good, that seems fine.
> I really don't care if I'm drinking Champagne or Prosecco, as long as it tastes good.
Well I do, because even if both taste good, they don't taste the same and I don't want to discover which one I have really bought only after having spent 50€ on my bottle.
If the name has no importance, then why insist on calling your product that doesn't come from Champagne, "Champagne"? And if it has a real importance, then it makes sense to respect it.
I am French and I am very happy with the quasi-trademark rules.
This way, when I buy a product named "X", I know that it follows a standard without having to look at all the details. If I think "X" is overrated, I will buy the lesser known "Y" that I know is just as good, because it has its own standard. Same as with name brands, really.
Speaking about Champagne, fundamentally, it is just a sparkling wine. No one forces you to buy Champagne if you want sparkling wine. In France, we have alternatives that can be just as good: Cremant, Blanquette, Clairette,... or even generic "mousseux".
The only thing that makes Champagne Champagne is that it has to meet a certain standard, and part of it is that it has to be made in the Champagne region.
I mean, it's like buying a Swiss watch that has nothing to do with Switzerland. It may be a very good watch, but don't call it a Swiss watch unless it is Swiss.
Being Portuguese, I too am in favour of geographic indications.
Like Port, or Madeira. There is no such thing as Champagne in Portugal. We too have sparkling wine, but we could not call it Champagne if we wanted.
Unfortugnately, we now have CETA. So if things go wrong, Canada will be able to export to the EU many protected products not included in CETA's (largely incomplete) Annex 20.
With the access to fresh milk from their own farm animals that they had? Why would milk kill "a lot of people in the middle ages"?
Lots of rural communities in Europe lived until the 50s or so not much unlike the middle ages (no fridges, no electricity, farming, etc) and they weren't harmed by their milk at all.
Pasteurization is only necessary for transportation. If you drink fresh milk from a clean source, the risk of disease is quite low. And I have nothing to gain by sharing this as a vegan :P
This is incorrect. Raw milk is not a low risk product. Raw milk is sold in tiny quantities, but regularly causes harm. That harm isn't limited to a bit of diarrhea, sometimes it's life-changing permantent damage.
The risks of raw milk are more severe for children, and children are often not asked for, nor able to give, consent to engage in this risky behaviour. Many outbreaks of raw milk poisoning included a child under 5. (Some of these children needed kidney transplant).
> From 2007 through 2012, 26 states reported 81 outbreaks linked to raw milk. The outbreaks caused 979 illnesses and 73 hospitalizations.
> From 2007 through 2009, 30 outbreaks were linked to raw milk. This increased to 51 outbreaks from 2010 through 2012.
Among outbreaks in which the food or drink linked to the outbreak was identified, the percentage associated with raw milk increased from 2% from 2007 through 2009 to 5% from 2010 through 2012.
[...]
> Probably no more than 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, yet more outbreaks were linked to raw milk than by pasteurized milk.
> If you consider the number of outbreaks associated with raw milk in light of the very small amount of milk that is consumed raw, the risk of outbreaks linked to raw milk is at least 150 times greater than the risk of outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk. [...] E. coli O157:H7, which can cause kidney failure and death, was a common cause of outbreaks linked to raw milk. Relatively mild viral infections and toxins were common causes of outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.
This seems pretty high relative to the number of people regularly consuming raw milk.
Why would they be ill more frequently than not? If anything, their lives were much better, and the environment much better than today's cows in industrial production settings.
In any case, anybody who hasn't spent all their lives in western cities, but knows rural communities, can attest to millions drinking fresh milk with very low risk for ages...
I don't think it killed at lot of people but it was pre-pasteurization so fresh milk didn't keep in a drinkable state for very long. Most of it got turned into butter or cheese pretty quickly. Almond milk was almonds (with a long shelf life) and boiled water (relatively clean) so less risk.
I'm sure people got sick buying hooky milk though.
Yeah, the almonds themselves keep for a long time, so you store it in that form. Given the amount of labour involved you wouldn't be wanting to try to make six months' supply at once anyway.
This is pre-refrigeration, pre-pasteurization, and milk is an awesome growth medium for bacteria plus a direct vector to various cow born diseases. Even with refrigeration and a much better disease model, modern medicine, etc raw milk regularly kills people so historically you would expect a high lifetime risks even if people where drinking it within hours of milking it.
Put 1 cup of Almonds and 3 cups of water in a blender, blend, filter and you have almond milk.
Substitute Almonds for Peanuts or Coconut and you have Peanut or Coconut Milk. Easy and not expensive.
Just fyi to people making almond milk this way is often more expensive than just buying almond milk from the store unless you have a cheap way to buy almonds in bulk.
No, phytic acid is the acid seeds have to protect themselves. Perhaps you could see this as a biological protection against being eaten. The acid inhibits digetion. It's present on many grains etc. such as lentils, rice, and so on.
The book "The Lost Art of Real Cooking" by Alabala and Natziger describes how to make what they claim to be medieval-style almond milk and almond butter (apparently quite different from what we buy in stores today).
Where I live, with the exception of oat milk, all soy, rice or almond milk comes with tricalcium phosphate and sometimes sugar, some flavour and even vegetable fat. Same for yoghurt.
This tendency to add stuff (particularly sugar and fat) to food is becoming more frequent in bread and other vegetable products that were healthier once.